6/6/2002: PETA advertisement

[Nic Name]

The reference to militia has only caused confusion when folks have tried to apply the clause without reference to militia, like it was a case of bad drafting because it doesn't fit well the current perceived needs.

It seems clear that the concern addressed by the 2nd Amendment was to ensure the freedom of the State in a federation. Having been formed by revolution against a government, and viewing themselves as independent sovereign states such as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the federal union of states was "conditional" on certain assurances of freedom of the State from the federation. High on the list was the right of the people to continue to keep and bear their arms to defend the State from the other states and the federation, if need be. Having just proved that an armed militia was necessary to achieve freedom of self determination it was the accepted notion.

In the context of the period, the people had just fought a revolution against their legitimate government, so self-determination was a very high priority and the founding fathers realized that such rights are often achieved and maintained by armed forces of the people of the State seeking self determination.

There are still folks in the NRA who still see their guns as the best defence against their own federal government. Ruby Ridge, etc.

For many, that notion is anachronistic. For others, it is a clear example of why the people need to stockpile weapons in their homes.

In modern times, many Americans interpret the constitutional language to support their current perceived need pack heat to protect themselves from murderers, rapists, terrorists and assorted mofos.